Forum menu
Just to check we're on the same page (because I'm not convinced), it's not the transfer of powers from EU law to UK law I'm talking about (that is within the GRB and if we must have Brexit needs to be done in some form). It's the changes to committee rules that will transfer power from our parliament to our government in perpetuity that I'm unhappy with. Checks and balances are a good thing and Leadsom's motion diminishes them.
We are on the same page aren't we THM?
As I am sure you are aware the GRB covers an massive amount of laws and the problem is the proposed law gives the government an uncertain amount of power.
That IS true...
...the uncertainty is obvious since in part it depends on what happens in the negotiations
Well we are getting closer now that the exaggerations are gone
Where does the perpetuity bit come from, out of interest. As far as I can see, there is reasonable clarity on when secondary and primary legislation is going to be used. Could be wrong, if you know better....
But in truth I am 52:48 on this 😉 It's a balancing act for sure. Why are the government doing what they are doing? Because they (and we should) know that the other parties will do everything they can at each stage to either derail Brexsit (lib Dems and the irrelavants) or make mischief (Lab). Frankly there is little option but to react in some way.
To see what bollocks the lib Dems are now coming out with
Lib Dem chief whip Alistair Carmichael said the proposal was “an affront to democracy” and promised: “We will fight tooth and nail to ensure parliamentary committees reflect the will of the electorate and do not simply rubber-stamp government decisions.”
We know what the will of the electorate is and it's not what the Lib Dems want. So they sre equally at fault here.
.the uncertainty is obvious since in part it depends on what happens in the negotiations
That is irrelevant.
The issue is it hands power to the government at the time irregardless of the negotiations.
Can you think of anyone you would trust with that? I wouldnt trust myself and the confidence drops rapidly after I dont get the final say.
We know what the will of the electorate is
Do we?
I really doubt we do. I mean do you think joes blogg from Barnsley idea matches Wetherspoons?
That is irrelevant
The HOL (and I) disagree
The HOL (and I) disagree
They do? It hasnt got to them yet.
You may need to do some homework on how this works Their material and reports are among the best on this whole issue.
Your view, "that's is irrelavant", their view (and mine)
The degree of uncertainty as to what exactly the process of converting EU law into UK law will involve—[b]and, in particular, the need to take account of the UK’s ongoing Article 50 negotiations with the EU—[/b] will almost certainly necessitate granting the Government relatively wide delegated powers under the ‘Great Repeal Bill’, both to amend existing EU law in preparation for the day of Brexit and to legislate for new arrangements following Brexit where necessary
You may need to do some homework on how this works
Which fails to answer any question apart from possibly some other singletrackers suggestion whether you could be any more condescending.
X-post. I gave their summary to help 😉
Frankly if you can't be bothered to do the homeowrk before positing, I can't help it....you decide. The material is there for all to read. It doesn't support your position.
Whatever the arrangements are for transferring powers into British law, our environmental legislation is likely to be in tatters. I say this because
1. EU directives and the corresponding UK legislation work because the EU watches our performance like a hawk - effectively policing our compliance. Without the EU in that role, compliance will slip. The removal of infraction threats will allow the govt to breath easy and ignore non compliance.
2. The incentive for a UK govt to adopt the highest standards possible is very low. They will be delighted to deregulate and eliminate legislation that is crucial to safeguarding the environment but which business finds tiresome.
3. The Habs and Birds directives will not apply so we will resort to the lesser protection afforded by SSSIs and the Wildlife and Countryside Acts.
Now it's entirely possible that the UK could adopt higher standards and set out a far better and more sustainable environmental regulation framework - but the chances of that happening are, in my opinion, almost zero. The only area for which I have some hope is agricultural policy.... But even that is would take a back seat when the sheer scale of what we are facing in terms of redrafting legislation becomes apparent. Progress on env legislation in all the administrations is already dead in the water as they all try and figure out what Brexit means.....
X-post. I gave their summary to help
Nope you didnt. You gave your special interpretation.
The HOL constitution committee state they are concerned and want a shedload of restrictions on what our favourite incompetent glorious leader wants to grant herself.
The headline on their page gives a hint of the problems
"Brexit fundamentally challenges constitutional balance between Parliament and Government"
So as much I would love to trust your opinion considering the HOL committee are going errmmm I might have to side with them.
THM - does anything the HoL say talk to my concern over government trying to take powers from parliament in order to be better able to push bills (any bills, not just the GRB) past parliament?
Because the quote above has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
The separate issues.
Nope THEY didn't.
This isn't going very well is it? First you claim that uncertainty is irrelevant, then you claim that the issue hasn't reached the HoL (both points easily faslficied, in fact the second by yourself) and then attempt to swerve to a different issue to which you then apply an exagerated interpretation to. Again let's see that they ACTUALLY say
Limiting the constitutional risks posed by the ‘Great Repeal Bill’
Slightlydifferent title to the one your INTRRPRETATION suggest 😉
The challenge facing Parliament—and on which we focus in this report—is how to grant the Government relatively wide delegated powers for the purpose of converting EU law into UK law, while ensuring that they cannot also be used simply to implement new policies desired by the Government in areas which were formerly within EU competence
You see it's perfectly possible to have calm and rational analysis without wild and exaggerated remoaning
NB still no specific areas of concern noted nor any practical solutions offered by remoaners despite the VAST nature of what is going on. (Not) odd that.
Morning IGM - getting ready for an early ride too?
X-post. You can see from the quote above - falsifying dissonances claims - that the HOL (and I) are fully aware of this and that it is a delicate balancing act. No one has said that it's straightforward plus we all know that it is arising because of the exceptional circumstances that we all face (as a result of a democratic process 😉 )
Re the details of Charlie Victor Leadsome's motions, I have not read them so would welcome any quotes or links that suggest a permanent and wider use of the specific powers relaying to the GRB. You know this better than me. I would share you valid concerns if that was the case.
Thm your blind faith in Tory/government benevolence is charming.
But considering the opinions expressed by senior Brexies and anachronisms such as Mogg, apparently our next PM 😉
http://www.xperthr.co.uk/blogs/employment-intelligence/2012/02/liam-fox-employment-law-deregulation/
As well as the fears of the devolved govs, that repatriated powers will weaken their independence from Westminster.
Theres genuine concern that any gov could abuse the amount of power they are about to grant themselves, especially one with a core of right wing goons who look more swivel-eyed by the day.
Not to mention incompetent & guilty of damaging the arleady precarious Brexit ( election U-turn & campaign being a great example of how useless they can be)
Blind faith???
Kimbers there ARE genuine concerns and there are wildly exagerated ones. Proponents of the latter struggle to provide real evidence to back their hysteria up.
It's also probable that there is some power grab battling against the plans to deliberately subvert the bill at comiittee stages. Some opponents are open about this, some less so. Both are concerning, both are typical of politicians. I have no blind faith in them for that reason.
Equally, I have no faith in wild exaggerations and non-factual BS
So, no proper oversight because…
A) there isn't enough time
B) MPs might frustrate the government
Well, this government chose to trigger A50 without starting this work first, and then the voters reduced their majority. That there is a task that "needs" doing, that has been started far too late, by a now minority government, is no excuse for executive suspending our democracy. If May had called an election, with the explict promise to trigger A50, and had increased her majority, she could get on with this in the proper manner. A later exit date would also have meant that a transition period might not have been "essential" (be in no doubt that it now is, we're not going to be ready to exit in many ways) giving the UK a stronger hand in negotiations.
So, no proper oversight because
😯
Yes, no proper oversight. Read the bill.
Just decided I'm feeding you. Time to stop.
I have done, have you?
Time to ride...
Remoaners just moaning. The whole rant about Commons Committee's is a blatant attempt to derail the Bexit process.
These t-shirts as seen on the rally yesterday say it all really, seething negativity. My observation over my 54 years is that those with a positive enthusiastic approach tend to achieve the most. That's how we at Vote Leave won. Reamin had little positive to say about anything least of all the EU
[img] 
[/img]
that pretty much sums up the strength of your arguments for leave. the best you've got is taking the piss out of a t-shirt?
The fact that you can't understand our sentiment Jambalaya means you have no idea what you've done to the country.
So maybe instead of simply criticising our point of view, why not try to understand it? This is what a decent human being would do. You're showing that you don't give much of a shit about others.
You're showing that you don't give much of a shit about others.
show me a right wing person that does. Not caring about others is part of the genetic make up of a right wing person, they are born with a lack of empathy.
That's how we at Vote Leave won
Well according to your own side, you won because you lied. Money for the NHS, Turks flooding the Country. etc
So maybe instead of simply criticising our point of view, why not try to understand it? This is what a decent human being would do. You're showing that you don't give much of a shit about others.
People are expressing strongly held views and he is simply dismissing them as 'moaning'. People are pointing out the massive real problems we are facing now and to him this is simply moaning. For ****'s sake.
You were born a hundred years too late. You'd have made a great first world war general. Tally ho, what!
So what efforts have you made to understand the points of view of those who want to leave the EU?
So ninfan, Chamberlain was right to appease Hitler?
As for not caring, most left wing people i know have been of the opinion that the UKs problems were westminster and that a huge amount of the issues could only be solved by WM. Care the NHS, education et al.
That tax rises would be needed and that everyone was going to have to pay more but it would be worth it.
The referendum for many was about WM and not about Brussels, only thing is that in attacking Brussels they have screwed themselves.
We have all lost, just a case that it will take some a little longer to understand.
So what efforts have you made to understand the points of view of those who want to leave the EU?
No more Muslims, no more Poles, no more immigrants. more money for the NHS. That covers most of the people i have met.
So ninfan, Chamberlain was right to appease Hitler?
No, what we ought to have done was join the German led Axis empire and seek to reform them from within...
😉
So what efforts have you made to understand the points of view of those who want to leave the EU?
You want me to list efforts?
Rather difficult, but I always seek to understand others points of view. It's what I do. I'm not one of those complaining about racists and xenophobes.
It seems from listening to the arguments that most leavers were simply misinformed. I don't accept that leaving was the right thing to do, beacause I don't think that having foreigners involved in part in the government of our country try is a big deal. Beacause the concept of 'foreigner' is fairly inocuous so why does it matter?
Understanding the leavers viewpoint? I do and its utter nonsense and abhorrent
Racism / xenophobia
Harking back to an imaginary time of empire
Believing the lies of the xenophobic right wing press
See, I would not trivialise it like that.
a positive enthusiastic approach tend to achieve the most. That's how we at Vote Leave won.
Leave won due to negativity about the EU, negativity about immigration. Negativity based on lies. Farage stands for xenophobic negativity and Boris for negative lies about the EU.
MOlgrips - its not trivialising it. Thats the reasons. No other reason has ever been offered by anyone I have read or discussed it with. All the reasons for leaving the EU boil down to one or a combination of these
One other fundamental point, What difference does it make to me whether i am ruled from London or Brussels, both are remote, both have little contact.
Economies of scale point to Brussels being better for many things, in the same way local councils club together to provide bin collections and the like.
Government should be at the lowest appropriate level, something that no WM government has shown any interest in.
Leave won due to negativity about the EU, negativity about immigration. Negativity based on lies. Farage stands for xenophobic negativity and Boris for negative lies about the EU.
Ah, more inmates for Barniers re-education camps then...
No other reason has ever been offered by anyone I have read or discussed it with.
Really? I've heard one bloke giving reasons that had nothing to do with your list since I was on my mothers tit
Another bloody right wing nutter, no doubt.
THM - sadly not riding. 4hour drive to visit my mother in hospital.
For you however...
The plan, detailed in a motion by Andrea Leadsom, the leader of the House of Commons, seeks to change the rules on membership of public bill committees, often referred to by their former name, standing committees.As part of the progress of a bill through the Commons, a committee is set up to scrutinise it in detail. This is often the period when the most amendments are made and potential problems addressed.
The party makeup of such committees is based on the composition of the Commons, meaning that since the election in June, when Theresa May lost her majority, newly formed committees would seek a political balance.
However, Leadsom’s motion, to be considered on Tuesday, says that while parity should be sought on other types of committee, this would not happen on public bill committees.
The rules should be interpreted, it reads, such that “where a committee has an odd number of members the government shall have a majority, and where a committee has an even number of members the number of government and opposition members shall be equal; but this instruction shall not apply to the nomination of any public bill committee”.
I believe the motion goes to the house this week.
This is not part of the GRB, but removes some parliamentary power for an indefinite period - i.e. there's no end date I think.
We'll see what actually goes to the house, but it is being suggested that current rules on a 9 strong committee might give 4 Cons, 4 Labs and 1 SNP, but Leadsom's proposals would give 5 Cons and 4 Labs. Quite a shift away from parliament to government.
MOlgrips - its not trivialising it. Thats the reasons. No other reason has ever been offered by anyone I have read or discussed it with.
Except Jambalaya, for one.
There's the chip on shoulder reason - Dyson, Tate & Lyle, at least one on here.
molgrips - Member
MOlgrips - its not trivialising it. Thats the reasons. No other reason has ever been offered by anyone I have read or discussed it with.Except Jambalaya, for one.
Nope - not read every post on here but Jamba fits right in with that analysis - his is ( mainly) believing the lies in the right wing press
So maybe instead of simply criticising our point of view, why not try to understand it? This is what a decent human being would do.
That works both ways. Look at the abuse jambas get here (and the posts after yours) and the crap spouted about how leave beat us and TJ's mypoic comment above that misses how much of the remoaning on the GRB is merely spouting LW press. Works both ways doesn't it?
The reasons why people voted leave are ignored, the reasons why we did such a bad job at presenting a positive case for remaining ignored, the ability to explain why CMD got a great deal was swamped in party political dogma. Amd all we do now is moan, moan, moan.
How many people have been able to explain specifically why their are SO outraged or what the alternative is to ensuring the "vast" amount of EU law is on our statute books on day one, The best is to do what we always do - no really, how long would that take ???
The remoaners are outdoing the Brexshiteers in making stuff up and exaggerating wildly
IGM - sorry to hear about your mother (in the same boat too) and hope she is ok. Best wishes. Thanks fior the link too. I guess the key question is this indeterminate period. I am with you if this is in perpetuity. Less so, if it is for the duration of the GRB. Can you (or anyone) clarify. Frankly there is a lot of skullduggery gong on here which is pretty unattractive.
As I have said before, my priorities are to expedite this process rather than to reverse it. We can debate the extend to which we want to/should fight on but IMO that is a lost battle. From a purely selfish perspective, there is a very big difference between how Brexshit affects my industry in theory v practice. In theory, it is very, very complicated. In pratciev the players are already well positioned to be able to respond either way to all outcomes - we get on with things - so the uncertainty is really about the costs of reorganisation and we want to minimise that uncertainty and cost ASAP. So I approach this from a different position to kimbers and others, their work/industries maybe be less prepared so for them the incentive to "get on with it" is probably lower.
It's messy isn't it!
Still best to focus on what is in front of us, not what we wish was in front of us, eh?!?
TJ I think you'll find I was posting my opinions [b]way before[/b] similar views appeared in the mainstream press, the vast majority of which I don't read. I don't read the Express, Mail, FT, Times or most of the Telegragph as that's subscription too now. The thread keeps ranting on out right wing this and that. Brexit was a cross party issue and it was the very strong Leave vote by Labour suporters which carried the day.
My view. The Tories under May are absolutely NOT going to weaken Environmental or Employment legislation post Brexit in such a away as to give Remoaners and/or the Labour Party any ammunition come the next GE. In my view they will do the contrary, they will strengthen both to head off that line of campaigning.
I see Tony Blair doing the rounds again today, an "epiphany" he has had supposedly. Well too late, he should have listened in 2003 (?) and in any case his big mistake wrt the EU was signing the Lisbon Treaty at all.
Vince Cable and Tony Blair, what a pair.